Talk:Kingdom of Poland (1917–1918)/Archive 1

Map
Can we get a map please?

Split
This article will soon be expanded and/or splitted into several subarticles. See WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enlargement
I managed to add some information and some pictures to the article. You are welcome to look at my German article on the same subject. I have created a link. --Alexvonf 13:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But why was this article moved from the correct name to where it is now? The name of the state was Kingdom of Poland and regency was simply the governing body. We could similarily move United States of America to Congress United States of America... Halibutt 16:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never heard the term 'regency' used, at least not in Polish. Alexvonf, |please compare this change on how to use interwiki links. Tnx for expanding the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that the Polish term suggested in the intro (królestwo regencyjne) seems completely new to me and I never heard such a name. And it's used by exactly one page. Compare it with the correct (IMO) term. Halibutt 07:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * that is because you all are too young. The term generally used for this period in the 50ties when I learned history was Krolestwo Regencyjne and it was also the term in usage during the 2nd Republic. I admit that the official name was Krolestwo Polskie, but there were too many Krolestwa Polskie, this was the only one that did not have a King but a Council in his place. Krolestwo regencyjne was used as contrast to Krolestwo Kongresowe--Alexvonf 09:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Young as we may be, Wikipedia is also young and thus it prefers to use the term more widely used today - and Google is an important reference tool (see Help:Page name and Naming conventions). See |Googlefight, a useful tool for comparison of names popularity. Or please city books (preferably newer ones), in ENGLISH, that use that term? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Finally, if the proper name of the state was Kingdom of Poland, then the whole Regency Kingdom thingie served simply as sort of a disambiguation. IMO if we have to use some disambiguation, then the dates would do. Halibutt 11:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wsadzi&#322; kij w gniazdo os...Do whatever you like, I was taught to use the term "Krolestwo Regencyjne" and do not care if other people prefer another term. If you so desire, move the article again to Kingdom of Poland (Regency 1916-1918), this title should be satisfactory to all. By the way, Halibutt, you seem to be from Warsaw, do you know where in Powazki Rydz-Smigly lies? I shall be in Warsaw almost three weeks in May and would like to take some photographs of burial places of people of whom I wrote. --Alexvonf 14:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well for me any of the following would do:
 * Kingdom of Poland
 * Kingdom of Poland (Mitteleuropa)
 * Kingdom of Poland (1916-1918)
 * Kingdom of Poland (regency)
 * Kingdom of Poland (WWI)
 * However, the version with the dates seem the best, especially that it's in accordance with other articles on Polish statehood.
 * Halibutt 16:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Carl Stephan
Given that the Archduke was never actually offered the crown, is the picture of him appropriate? I'd add that I'd prefer the title Kingdom of Poland (1916-1918), although I did change a redirect to go here instead of there. john k 05:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * he was offered the crown several times, although not in an official way, as his cousin Emperor Charles I of Austria himself wanted to become a Polish King and unite Congress Poland with Galicia, Lodomeria and parts of Lithuania (Vilna) and White Russia. C. Stephan's candidature was strongly supported by Wilhelm II, his ally Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and the King of Saxony, Friedrich August III, who resigned the rights of the House of Wettin to the Polish crown (as established by the Constitution of May 3rd). During the 2nd Polish Republic Carl Stephan and after him his eldest son Carl Albrecht (Polish Karol Olbracht, he was a Polish citizen and Major General) stood as firm candidates to the throne and were supported by the Monarchist movement, which was not so weak as one might assume today. The facts I quoted are taken from "60 Jahre Politik und Gesellschaft", Berlin 1936, by Count Hutten-Czapski, who was an important eye witness to all events occuring during the time of Regency Kingdom. --Alexvonf 09:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article name change
Would anyone object to my moving the article to Regency Kingdom of Poland? This would make it more consistent with the other Polish statehood articles. Appleseed 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the discussion above; I still think that Regency Kingdom of Poland is preferable because it doesn't use dates, and it avoids the ambigious term Kingdom of Poland. Does everyone still think that the current version if preferable? Appleseed 22:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-German
This article is quite blatantly anti-German. All sources I have read mention specifically that the Germans avoided abuse of Polish populations, and there was even plans of cession of the Austrian province of Galicia to the new Polish state (though these dissapated somewhat when the Austrian claimant was stalled). The source listed for the quote seems to be rather biased, and I don't know if it can be trusted (for one thing, it talks of settling Belgians in Mesopotamia... which seems rather unlikely considering that Mesopotamia would be under the domain of the German-allied Ottoman Empire, who wouldn't be particularly interested in it). --24.147.128.141 01:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Galicia would only have been included if the so-called "Austro-Polish" solution had gone through, in which the Austrian Emperor also became King of Poland. john k 04:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please quote your sources. The quote is rather old, but it seems valid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know- the source seems to be an American propaganda document. --24.147.128.141 01:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is so blatantly Anti-German that its not even funny. One of the sources IS a wartime propaganda document. Citation #4 (about the ethnic cleansing) appears to be the idle theories of some political philosophers in the source material, while it seems like National German policy in the article.--Blkgardner (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is ridiculously biased. "Ethnic cleansing? You mean allowing Germans to move into the land? That is ethnic cleansing? The bit about starving the Polish population is even more absurd, considering the logistics of Germany supporting all of Eastern Europe, its own armies AND its native population. Typical Polocentric world view in this article. The claims which are the most controversial should have AT LEAST 4 or 5 confirming sources before everything is taken at face value. Right now, this article reads like there was some kind of Holocaust going on...wait, not going on, but planned for the future. The fact that Germany lost the war and all these claims about what Germany "was going to do" never became anything more than claims makes the use of Holocaust-like language even more absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.217.117 (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't follow the following in the introduction: ″The state was utilized by the German government alongside punitive threats to induce Polish landowners living in the German-occupied Baltic territories to move to the state and sell their Baltic property to Germans in exchange for moving to Poland, and efforts were made to induce similar emigration of Poles from Prussia to the state.[4]″ What are the 'German-occupied Baltic territories' here? Isn't that just Prussia? Or are we referring specifically to occupied parts of the Russian Empire? Given that Poland didn't exist on the Baltic, and hadn't done for over a century, it seems unreasonable to refer to Baltic territories as German-Occupied, as if this was something temporary or recent. Those territories were just part of the German Empire, weren't they? Indeed, parts of the German Empire which had been inhabited by German speakers (as well as Poles) for centuries. — JTzara (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

So where's the source for germanisation?
Please provide the source for the info or leave it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.174.162 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Walcott's opinion is not a credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.174.162 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? What sources state that Walcott is not credible?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I added further sources supporting this. --Molobo 14:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Walcott is obviously wartime propaganda.--Blkgardner (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially the bit about the 'cunning smile'. Shouldn't someone, somewhere in the article cite a major work of history? The 'quotes' (quote, really) section really ought to be set within its context, namely, as Allied war propaganda. --Helmold (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a proof, rather by-the-way assesment, but can be helpful (from Polish wikipedia).--Dotz Holiday (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, alone by reading this sentences from the Walcott report should make clear, that this is first class war propaganda...

''Such is the German mind as it was disclosed to me in several weeks' contact with officers of the staff. Treaties are scraps of paper, if they hinder German aims. Treachery is condoned and praised, if it falls in with German interest. Men, lands, countries are German prizes. Populations are to be destroyed or enslaved so Germany may gain. Women are Germany's prey, children are spoils of war.''

And the "General" von Kries mentioned by Walcott was a civilian-bureaucrat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.237.98 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added the neutrality template to the section on German aims because it appears very biased. Until a better source than Walcott is found, I don't think the template should be removed.--Karl franz josef (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the German aims section because, except for Walcott it just repeats stuff already said in "Early Plans" (Border strip, economic and military dominance etc.) Walcott is obviously War-time propaganda and does not satisfy Wiki demands for WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.36 (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC) I have deleted the Walcott report (the thing about willingly to starve the cibvil population in Poland), since this is, as was said before, no neutral source. At least I would like to see some opinons from proper history books about this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.174.239.132 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

GE or CP ?
Central Powers is misleading, Austro-Hungary had other plans and was opposed to this proposal as it made GE more powerfull, only as GE gained in strenght and power of AH did it agree. OE was not involved in planning. The main link is to puppet state-economy, transport, military, foreign policy was to be controled by Germany.--Molobo (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting point; certainly we should clarify that - with refs, of course.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Puppet or satellite?
Puppet state or satellite state? A cursory review of the literature shows that puppet is more popular than satellite in this context: vs  (and used by expert historians like Jerzy Lukowski or Norman Davies).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Client state?--Dotz Holiday (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Disestablishment Date in the Template
Some legal approach to the dates:
 * Nov 11 1918 is a symbolic date only for Day of Independence - however Piłsudski obtained position of commander-in-chief in the Polish army than (Regency Council decree of Nov 11 1918, promulgated some later),
 * Regency Council was disestablished on Nov 14 1918 and that was the first formal date of the end of the Kingdom (decree concerning dissolving of Regency Council was published later, in his decree of the same day Piłsudski first time called Polish state the Republic, however it was connected with draft only),
 * calling Polish state a Republic and Piłsudski - the Chief of State, is second significant and quite sure moment (decree of Nov 22, 1918, promulgated Nov 29 1918)

--Dotz Holiday (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)--Dotz Holiday (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could explain the intricacies in a footnote? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Better than nothing. Could you find and interview person, who decided here, that the end of the kingdom was Nov 11? I doubt, but may be he/she has some better explanation thant Day of Independence and Piłsudski's arrival?--Dotz Holiday (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The date of establishment is inconsistent with Polish article also. While indication of one date is hard I suggest to show November 1918 as the twilight of the Kingdom.--90.156.17.111 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Provisoric Council of State (Tymczasowa Rada Stanu)/Germanization
...was the first government and direct (or almost direct) predecessor of the Regency Council - no info?--Dotz Holiday (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is that stated? I will translate pl:Tymczasowa Rada Stanu shortly, the proper title would be Provisional Council of State, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowhere. Inproper because of fast translation.--Dotz Holiday (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Austrian candidates were only proposed early. Later Germany demanded a German prince to rule the puppet state. Germanization as goal is quite confirmed by many historians. Also administration and judiciary system was to be made in German. Education was allowed to use Polish.--Molobo (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To cope with problem of germanization first we should define its exact meaning. I can see here some more problems to discuss also:
 * 1) Common sense of germanization (in Poland) is c.a. Prussian policy in Grand Duchy of Posen at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
 * 2) Such policy shouldn't be mixed up with legal occupant's powers executed in occupated (Russian) territory (presence of german and austro-hungarian provisoric administration and severe conditions of occupation),
 * 3) So most "common sense" germanization attempts needed annexation of some territory (proposed, eg. by Ludendorf, so called "security belt"/"border belt", including Zagłębie, Kalisz and Łódź) and didn't occured in fact,
 * 4) We can also define "germanization" as political situation, when Poland is permanent German client state (but it seems to be another topic).
 * 5) There were some (let's say) minor germanization actions in Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918), eg. excluding german schools from Polish authority or germanization of protestant church in the Kingdom of Poland.
 * 6) Such real germanization actions shouldn't be mixed up with propositions, memoranda or diplomatic treats - like one concerning "border belt".
 * 7) Reluctant handing over of administration shouldn't be considered as germanization, but rather as a part of unconsistent German policy towards the Poles (BTW permission for Polish courts was given before September 1917).

When I cope with all that matters at Polish Wikipedia I can try to do it here. For knowledge in all subjects connected with our puppet state and even germanization problem than I strongly recommend Bogdan Hutten-Czapski's memoirs under the title Sześćdziesiąt lat życia politycznego i towarzyskiego, available in web (some e-library in Poznań) - it can be a bit biased, but still honest and very exact.--Dotz Holiday (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Germanization
Offtop, but - works of historians confirming germanization should be indicated in references, German administration and judiciary system were just right of occupying power (check Haga convention IV), education was given to Polish authorities in late 1917.--Dotz Holiday (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not offtopic, really - just needed a new section :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing opinion from the article
This article should be NPOV. Any German aims ought to be in one of the other plethora of articles covering the WW I timeframe. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So what about reasons of creation/genesis (aka German aims)? --Dotz Holiday (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Misteake [sic] at section:Early German administration
Such occupation administration (both General Governments) wasn't a part or precedensor of Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918), nor it wasn't german only. General Governments of central powers were speparate and paralell entities, with some powers within Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918). --Dotz Holiday (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Formation of this state
This article and those related to it appear to be inconsistent as to whether this Central Powers puppet state was even formed at all. I'm referring specifically to the status of the Provisional Council of State and the Regency Council. Also, if the state was not actually formed, its establishment/disestablishment years should be removed from the title, as this is pointless for a paper project. Something like Kingdom of Poland (proposed WWI state) would be more suitable.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article isn't perfect, but in case of your question - even puppet state has dates of establishment and disestablishment (BTW another/Russian controlled Kingdom of Poland technically existed until treaty of Brest in 1918). --Dotz Holiday (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a Polish client state, or why else would there be this (image below): a bank note of "Poland" dated from 1917?--R-41 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Polish banknote from 1917 - 10 Marek Polskich.jpg


 * Yep, there was a Polish client state. Bank notes were issued by Germany (Germany controlled bank) to rob the occupied Polish territory. --Dotz Holiday (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. I had completely forgotten I even brought this up.
 * You guys seem to be misreading my point entirely. I'm not arguing whether this German-sponsored Kingdom of Poland was a puppet state; the established academic literature and documented information unambiguously indicates it most certainly was. My point is that this and related articles are contradicting themselves about the formation of this state.
 * It's stated right in the intro that the kingdom was never formed. Only the German and Austro-Hungarian districts of Warsaw and Lublin seem to have been, through which they governed occupied Poland. The article further goes on to state that the Germans never actually transferred administration to the planned Polish puppet, just that they intended to do so at some point in the future.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is correct. This state was never created, there were only vogue promises.I made the proper changes to avoid confusing the readers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * According to definition (political science) a state is constituted by an authority, a territory and people. Recognition by other states is important, but secondary issue. The most significant deficit of Polish statehood was connected with the first condition - an authority. But deficit doesn't mean - lack of any Polish authority (which is described in the article here and - with more details - in Polish Wikipedia). So - of course Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918) was "proposed puppet state", if Germany would win the war. But it was de facto puppet state also, with own government, supervised by Germany. --Dotz Holiday (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

March 1918 - treaty of Brest - external souvereigny (explanation of important editions). See Polish article. --Dotz Holiday (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Council of ministers
Clean up content - office holders. The ministers' list is incomplete. If sb really would like to have such content here, I suggest separate section for administration. --Dotz Holiday (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Prime Ministers:
 * Jan Kucharzewski (November 26, 1917 - February 27, 1918)
 * Antoni Ponikowski (February 27 - April 3, 1918)
 * Jan Kanty Steczkowski (April 4 - October 23, 1918)
 * Józef Świeżyński (October 23 - November 5, 1918)
 * Władysław Wróblewski (November 5–11, 1918)

Foreign Ministers:
 * Wojciech Rostworowski, Director of the Department of Political Affairs (26 November 1917 - 27 February 1918)
 * Janusz Radziwiłł, Director of the Department of State (4 April - 23 October 1918)
 * Stanisław Głąbiński, Minister for Outside Affairs (23 October - 4 November 1918)

Minister of Finances:
 * Jan Kanty Steczkowski (December 7, 1917 - February 27, 1918)

BTW: Antoni Ponikowski and Władysław Wróblewski weren't Prime Ministers. They were just provisional heads of administration. --Dotz Holiday (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

= Cleansing of Polish and Jewish population = As the article is written, it seems like the German plan for the Kingdom of Poland was to create a territory cleansed from Polish and Jewish population, is that really correct? As far as I understand, the German plan was to create the Polish Border Strip from annexed Polish territory and then remove the Polish and Jewish population into the (German-controlled) Polish Kingdom (thus making room for German settlement in the Border Strip). Please correct me, or make the article more clear on this point.

/Erik EriFr (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the plan was former russian controlled congress poland should become kingdom of poland. polish population in other territory in german/austrian controll should either be germanized or resettled to new kingdom of poland. the kingdom of poland should of course stay polish178.210.114.106 (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Austro-Polish solution vs. Habsburg candidacy
I'm not sure the article is clear enough on the distinction between the two. The Austro-Polish solution was the idea that all of Congress Poland would be joined to Austrian Galicia to form a third kingdom of the dual monarchy under the Emperor of Austria as King of Poland. Separate from that was the idea that Archduke Karl Stephan or his son might become king of a Polish kingdom comprised of Congress Poland. My understanding was that the former idea was gradually abandoned as the Austrian position grew worse, but that the latter remained a viable prospect more or less throughout the war. Some distinction might be in order? john k (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing
At several points, the article describes a plan for the ethnic cleansing of a Border Strip, but doesn't say whether it actually happened. This seems like an important detail to include in an encyclopaedia article. At one point, the article even explains that the ethnic cleansing was supposed to have been completed by the end of 1916. Did this happen or didn't it? 209.93.225.243 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Travesty of Truth
WP:NOT HERE → 81.131.219.6 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We do certainly not need to go in to an issue of so called "Polish nationalists". But the article is in any event not up to standard, I think. See below Boeing720 (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Who was the King in this Kingdom ?
The Central Powers wanted to have the large Polish people on their side. And out of all Polish people, did a large majority live inside Russia, after Poland's sad destiny by the end of the 18th Century. But this war wasn't over by 1916. And who was the Monarch of this supposed Kingdom ? I feel the better parts of this article can be better used in Polish history (which should cover all Polish states through all times). Article headline impairs with its content. And lots of the history part is totally without sources. This article has been flagged for seven years. And there's also much to say about POV here. It's mainly seen from one side. And all other sides appear to be thrown shit on. Germany and Austria-Hungary mostly. While Russia is left alone, and had have a chance to create a Polish Kingdom for some 115 years (before 1914), without having made any efforts in that direction, not to my knowledge at least. Boeing720 (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

December 29, 2017

 * The article needs a lot of work. I just did some preliminary cleanup, but it is not enough.  Poeticbent  talk 22:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Province of East Galicia?
The section "Austria-Hungary", states the following: "It was clear to Austrian politicians that the creation of a Polish state along the lines intended by Germany would mean the loss of Galicia, so they proposed its partition and the formation of East Galicia as an Austrian province". Is "East Galicia" really correct, and not West Galicia? I do not have access to the source, but as far as I understand, the major part of East Galicia was already part of Austria-Hungary, as the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. It would be odd if the Astrians wanted to form a small province of East Galicia, in addition to the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria.

Kindest /EriFr (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)